Multi-Engine Before Commercial?

(Robert M. Gary) wrote in message
How are you going to get the 10 hours of multi solo time required for
an initial commerical in a multi?

read the regulations again, there is no such requirements on the book.

--Sylvain

"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
Whatever. For now I regard
aerobatics and tailwheel training as diversions that use time and money that
could be better spent in improving the basic skills you were supposed to be
learning in the first place.

You probably wouldn't say that if you had tried it. I honestly believe
I'm a much better Mooney pilot because I started as a tailwheel pilot.
I believe I can land in shorter distance and I never have had the
typical Mooney transition problem of landing on the nose wheel (very
expensive).
I've not had an opportunity to use my aerobatic training in the Mooney
but if I ever get flipped upside down I don't think I'll react with
simply fear because its a picture I've seen outside before. When I
hear 1/2 the commercial pilots out there say that they are afraid to
slip on short final because they think they might spin a tear comes
down my eye and I wish they'd all had some tailwheel training. When I
see people struggle with cross winds I think the same.
I also believe I'm a much better CFI for it. I don't worry that a
student might get uncoordinated and spin the Cherokee when he should
stall it, I've spun before, I'm not concerned about it. If I were
scared my students would pick up and that and they would be afraid
too.
I also believe tailwheel training should be required for all CFIs.
Your students will try to land sideways every time (actually BFRs for
rated pilots are usually worse). You need to have the confidence with
your feet to let teh student get 3/4 of the way to the grass and then
kick in just the amount of rudder to save the day. If you do more, or
sooner, the student will never learn. The only think more
directionally unstable than a taildragger is a pre-solo pilot in a
172. You really need to have a lot of confidence in what you do in
order to present the right skills to your students. They really need
to feel confident that they are not taking you to the edge of your
skills and that the two of you are going to be an insurance claim.


-Robert, CFI

In article , Michael wrote:
"C J Campbell" wrote
[value of aerobatic training]
You hear this bit of wisdom a lot, but I am beginning to question it. I will

Something about this post bothered me, but Michael hit it on the head...


real value is that the the aerobatically trained pilot will generally
see the upset coming a mile away and never allow it to happen in the
first place. Aerobatics demands that you learn to fly entirely
without instruments, because in aerobatic attitudes none of them are
reliable. It demands that you learn to feel the airplane, instead of
just flying the numbers. The first time you feel the bite of the

Granted, I haven't done any aerobatics yet (it's on the to do list), but
I do remember vividly being close to my private pilot checkride,
demonstrating a stall. The wing started getting out from under me and
I was on the rudder before I even realized what was happening. I'm sure
it's because of the spin training that was required for the Canadian
private pilot. It becomes visceral.


Morris

"Michael" wrote in message
...

I think this is about the worst advice from a flight instructor that I
have ever heard.


Actually, Michael, you sound to me like an arrogant fool.

"Michael" wrote in message
...
In fact, I have often said that nobody should be
allowed to get a CFI ticket until he has demonstrated a loop, spin,
and roll solo in an appropriate aircraft.


To expand a little further on my earlier post, I simply note that nobody is
beating down your door asking your opinion of what the certification
requirements for a CFI should be. The supply of 10,000 hour ex-fighter jocks
willing to take CFI jobs at less than minimum wage appears to be somewhat
limited, to say the least.

Although I have done loops, spins, rolls, etc., perhaps I am not as
impressed with myself for having done them as you are. They are undeniably a
lot of fun. But do they really help you to learn to teach? I think not.

Frankly, your incessant criticism of flight instructors, airline pilots,
pilots in general, mechanics, the FAA, and virtually everybody else involved
with aviation puts you at odds with a whole lot of people that I suspect
might know a little bit more than you do. Your generalizations have gone
beyond mere ignorance and have entered the realm of being dangerous.

Your demands for extreme qualifications place you on the lunatic fringe.

"Craig" wrote in message
om...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

You hear this bit of wisdom a lot, but I am beginning to question it. I
will
grant that there may be some value in upset recovery training. I doubt
there
is a lot to be learned from a tailwheel endorsement that will improve
your
'stick and rudder skills.' In fact, I am beginning to wonder whether
anyone
can give a realistic appraisal of what 'stick and rudder skills' even
are.
If by 'stick and rudder skills' you mean the ability to maintain
altitude,
airspeed, heading, and coordinated flight, then I would say that the
instrument rating probably is the most valuable in enhancing these
skills.


A good acro program will give you a much enhanced situation awareness
of what the airplane is doing without any reference to the instruments
or outside the cockpit.


I would hope that my students have that kind of situational awareness even
before they solo.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

I also believe tailwheel training should be required for all CFIs.
Your students will try to land sideways every time (actually BFRs for
rated pilots are usually worse).

Ain't it the truth? However, rather than being ready to 'save' a student
every time, I prefer to talk him through it. I only step in if it appears
that serious damage to the aircraft is imminent. Students feel like they
have 'failed' and become discouraged if the instructor is constantly taking
over. They also feel like they have 'failed' and they become discouraged if
they blow a tire, so it is a fine line. Knowing when to intervene is quite
possibly the essence of being a good flight instructor.

Every now and then I learn something odd, such as how a student's cowboy
boots might be contributing to his inability to use the rudders properly.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

I also believe tailwheel training should be required for all CFIs.
Your students will try to land sideways every time (actually BFRs for
rated pilots are usually worse).

Ain't it the truth? However, rather than being ready to 'save' a student
every time, I prefer to talk him through it. I only step in if it appears
that serious damage to the aircraft is imminent. Students feel like they
have 'failed' and become discouraged if the instructor is constantly taking
over. They also feel like they have 'failed' and they become discouraged if
they blow a tire, so it is a fine line. Knowing when to intervene is quite
possibly the essence of being a good flight instructor.

I think it's both. You try to talk them through it but if they start
to go off into the weeds you need to let them go a bit before you jump
in. They need to feel the plane and don't need CFIs jumping in all the
time. Then you taxi off and talk about what happened (usually the
student asks). Probably the most important thing a CFI needs to be
able to do is give instant feedback. Whether a student is doing turns,
stalls, etc if something doesn't come out right we need to be right
there with a reason. Also important is to keep a mental count of the
number of things you've corrected a student on and make sure you
balance than with the number of thinks you've given them a pat on the
back for. Learning to fly can often leave you feeling pretty low, its
important that, as CFIs, we really show excitement when students do
well. I think the job is 50% psychology. The reason I got into CFIing
(in my spar time) was that I noticed that there really were not a lot
of active "real" GA pilots teaching. Most CFIs either only teach or
flying airlines or something else. There aren't a lot of CFIs out
there that can tell you about their IMC trip last weekend down south
and impart that personal experience from flying the family around.
CFIs should actively be doing the type of flying that students plan to
do.

Every now and then I learn something odd, such as how a student's cowboy
boots might be contributing to his inability to use the rudders properly.


I agree. In the J-3 I found the oddest things would happen when people
try to fly with sneakers because they couldn't hit the breaks with
stiff soles (I wore slippers). You need to curl your feet to fit your
heal into the space where the brakes are.

"C J Campbell" wrote
To expand a little further on my earlier post, I simply note that nobody is
beating down your door asking your opinion of what the certification
requirements for a CFI should be. The supply of 10,000 hour ex-fighter jocks
willing to take CFI jobs at less than minimum wage appears to be somewhat
limited, to say the least.

Actually, there are more than a few out there. Quite a few of the
people who taught me fit into that category, if only loosely. There
are plenty of them who are interested in instructing - but few care to
work for some guy who treats them like burger flippers and thinks he
knows it all because he wrote the big check. You have to find them -
they're not looking for you. It's well worth it, though. You learn a
lot of things the average instructor won't teach you.

Although I have done loops, spins, rolls, etc., perhaps I am not as
impressed with myself for having done them as you are. They are undeniably a
lot of fun. But do they really help you to learn to teach? I think not.

Wait until the first time a student inadvertently puts you into a
spin, then come back and tell me about it.

Frankly, your incessant criticism of flight instructors, airline pilots,
pilots in general, mechanics, the FAA, and virtually everybody else involved
with aviation puts you at odds with a whole lot of people that I suspect
might know a little bit more than you do.

Any criticism of an entrenched system ALWAYS puts the critic at odds
with the people who benefit from that system. So what else is new?

Your generalizations have gone
beyond mere ignorance and have entered the realm of being dangerous.

Dangerous to your business, perhaps, but not otherwise.

Your demands for extreme qualifications place you on the lunatic fringe.

Do you truly think a solo loop, spin, and roll are extreme
qualifications? To me it's just a demonstration to an insurance
company and/or FBO (hence solo) that you have developed a minimal
level of proficiency in flying a minimally aerobatic airplane in
something other than level flight. The fact that you suggest this is
an extreme qualification speaks volumes.

I can't think of a single experienced pilot (never mind instructor)
who does not recognize the intrinsic value of aerobatic and tailwheel
training. And yet you come out and claim that they're a waste of time
because you can't see the difference in the pilots. Then you call me
a lunatic. I think you should have stuck with arrogant - at least
that's honest, even if there is more than a bit of the pot calling the
kettle black there.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"C J Campbell" wrote
To expand a little further on my earlier post, I simply note that nobody
is
beating down your door asking your opinion of what the certification
requirements for a CFI should be. The supply of 10,000 hour ex-fighter
jocks
willing to take CFI jobs at less than minimum wage appears to be
somewhat
limited, to say the least.

Actually, there are more than a few out there. Quite a few of the
people who taught me fit into that category, if only loosely.

Really? Who were these instructors? What were their actual qualifications?


Although I have done loops, spins, rolls, etc., perhaps I am not as
impressed with myself for having done them as you are. They are
undeniably a
lot of fun. But do they really help you to learn to teach? I think not.

Wait until the first time a student inadvertently puts you into a
spin, then come back and tell me about it.

Already happened. What do you want to know about it? Most of them just do
what you tell them to do to get out of the spin. A few say "Wheeee! Let's do
it again!" which makes me wonder how inadvertant it was. Only one froze and
asked me to take the plane. I made him practice stalls until the cows came
home.


Frankly, your incessant criticism of flight instructors, airline pilots,
pilots in general, mechanics, the FAA, and virtually everybody else
involved
with aviation puts you at odds with a whole lot of people that I suspect
might know a little bit more than you do.

Any criticism of an entrenched system ALWAYS puts the critic at odds
with the people who benefit from that system. So what else is new?


Ah. Just like all the other crackpots, you think you are Galileo fighting
the establishment. Now I understand.


Your demands for extreme qualifications place you on the lunatic fringe.

Do you truly think a solo loop, spin, and roll are extreme
qualifications?

I think your hourly requirements are ridiculous. Your ideal flight
instructor appears to be somebody who spends no time flight instructing.